The_Hater wrote:Schad wrote:Johnny Bball wrote:
Sorry but why such an arbitrary small sample size. Why not go back to 2000 and then compare the Yankees Red Sox and even Tigers (which didn't always spend) against every other team's appearances. Because the numbers are 13, 8 and 5. You use 4 years for the Yankees for your point and they have been to the postseason for 13 of 17 years. Tanking/dismantling is not required in baseball. All that's required is not trading away the future. And I'm not the one ignoring reality.
Nice part of the boards you got here. But I think I'll just go back to basketball.
Sure, let's compare a few teams. The Red Sox made the playoffs in eight of seventeen seasons, while having a top five payroll in all but one year (that being 2000). The Cardinals made the playoffs in twelve of those seventeen seasons while never cracking the top five in payroll, and frequently appearing outside the top ten. Part of that is the division in which each plays, but guess what? We share a division with the Red Sox, too. And it's worth noting their trajectory: they traded away a bunch of highly paid vets to kickstart a mini-rebuild timed to coincide with the arrival of a bevy of young prospects, rather than doubling down on older and older players.
Further, baseball has seen two trends in recent years that render the early aughts somewhat less than useful for determining one's strategy today. The first is that the decline curves of players mysteriously changed after the league started testing for steroids and amphetamines, and consequently the average age of effective major league players has dropped. The Giants had the oldest pitching staff on average this season, at exactly 30.0 years old; in 2000, the Yankees pitching staff averaged 32.0 years of age. All the while, free agent cost-per-WAR has skyrocketed.
Take those two things together, and what you get for your dollars in free agency is far less than you once would, because those late-20s/early-30s free agents i) cost more compared to what they provide, and ii) have fewer years left in the tank before they become boat anchors. Thus, building through free agency is far less effective than it once was, as the Yankees have discovered in recent seasons...there is a reason they are reorienting after a few years of increasing age (and payroll) with declining effectiveness.
Plus there's that simple fact that the Jays don't have and won't have a BoSox/Yankees type of payroll to spend themselves out of any mistakes. Yes fans can complain about that but it still doesn't address our current reality. Even if payroll gets a bump this winter, which is likely, it's still not going to match the BoSox, Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs ability to spend.
Why don't the Jays have the type of payroll the Bosox/yankees, dodgers/cubs do? Are you basing that comment on market numbers and Television deal finances? The Jays have a 36+ Million captured market, and leverages its own broadcasting business. The fans are loyal, and there is no other baseball competition like in those other markets. Rogers also bought the skydome for a huge discount didn't they? Their capital expenses are low it seems. Even given the low canadian dollar, there a ways to hedge that, and also from the player point of view the tax situation can be equal or favorable. Maybe I'm missing something here. I see Toronto as a vibrant, rich growing city with an exceptional situation and market that can easily afford a perpetual premium product.
